add class level threshold checks

[tbarker9comcast]

So now that #11 is done, it would be great to have a threshold that is applied on a per class basis. As it stands, on a large codebase one could have a new class with no tests and everything could be hunky-dory.

[sksamuel]

That's a good point and a good idea for a feature. I'll add that for the 1.0 release.

[tbarker9comcast]

Yeah, been using a custom task against the xml to do this. Also be great to fine grain this as well... preferably via a config instead of code comments, ie all classes must have 90% coverage except these ones that should have 80% coverage.

[sksamuel]

It's easy enough to do on a class level via config. The code comments (I
assume the ones Richard added is to what you refer?) are great for marking
small pieces of code as ignored.

I was also going to add an annotation @unCoVered or something for method
level exclusions.

On 20 May 2014 20:38, Tommy Barker notifications@github.com wrote:

Yeah, been using a custom task against the xml to do this. Also be great
to fine grain this as well... preferably via a config instead of code
comments, ie all classes must have 90% coverage except these ones that
should have 80% coverage.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/12#issuecomment-43672987
.

[sksamuel]

I've also been working on a coveralls type site with all this shown. Any
interest ?

On 20 May 2014 20:40, Stephen Samuel (Sam) sam@sksamuel.com wrote:

It's easy enough to do on a class level via config. The code comments (I
assume the ones Richard added is to what you refer?) are great for marking
small pieces of code as ignored.

I was also going to add an annotation @unCoVered or something for method
level exclusions.

On 20 May 2014 20:38, Tommy Barker notifications@github.com wrote:

Yeah, been using a custom task against the xml to do this. Also be great
to fine grain this as well... preferably via a config instead of code
comments, ie all classes must have 90% coverage except these ones that
should have 80% coverage.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/12#issuecomment-43672987
.

[tbarker9comcast]

I didn't know there were code comments one could use... in general I feel dirty about adding stuff to my source code that is not actually code or comments on how it works.

I might be interested in checking out coveralls. I presume it is a commercial service? Our stuff lives in github enterprise, I assume that would not be a problem. What else does it offer besides test coverage reports?

[sksamuel]

Nothing that's all coveralls does. It's mainly for OSS.
The downside is that it doesn't do anything scala specific.

On 20 May 2014 20:52, Tommy Barker notifications@github.com wrote:

I didn't know there were code comments one could use... in general I feel
dirty about adding stuff to my source code that is not actually code or
comments on how it works.

I might be interested in checking out coveralls. I presume it is a
commercial service? Our stuff lives in github enterprise, I assume that
would not be a problem. What else does it offer besides test coverage
reports?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/12#issuecomment-43674537
.

[tbarker9comcast]

yeah, I think we are fine then. Time permitting, I might help with this issue though. That said, there are a lot of things I would prefer to do than wrangle with sbt 😃

[sksamuel]

lol I've actually become half decent (as that's about all you can be) with
SBT due to writing these plugins. It was a massive time sink though and I
feel like I've lost 3 months of married life to a fucking build tool.

On 20 May 2014 21:02, Tommy Barker notifications@github.com wrote:

yeah, I think we are fine then. Time permitting, I might help with this
issue though. That said, there are a lot of things I would prefer to do
than wrangle with sbt [image: 😃]

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/12#issuecomment-43675631
.